SRT and Quantum of Light.=." Einstein's theory of special relativity followed a series of perplexing experiments . . .. . . . . . . . . .Einstein showed that drastically revising the basic concepts of space and timeled to a consistent description of all these perplexing experiments . . . . ."/ Book: Andrei Sakharov. Quarks and the structure of matter.By Harry J. Lipkin. page 65.Copyright 2013 by World Scientific Publishing /

In the others words, according to Einsteinbecause the space and time different from Newtonianis possible the phenomenons of SRT.

I give another interpretation:the phenomenons of SRT are possible because behaviorof quantum of light allow them be appeared.The behavior of quantum of light is the cause of SRT's phenomenons.===.." Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancyand universality of the speed of light.Could the first postulate be true and the other false?If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make twopostulates. But I don't think many people realized until recentlythat you could have a consistent theory in which you changed onlythe second postulate."/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /

It means that speed of light is a constant but not an absolute constant.The speed of quantum of light is independent ( doesn't depend on outside forces )Quantum of light can itself change its speed ( by own impulse / spin )Therefore SRT is theory about behavior of quantum of light====...

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

Sounds good to me... I mean, the speed of light can be changed so easily anyway, it's only natural to disqualify it as an absolute constant. We figured that a vacuum would present the ultimate speed of it, but is there any total vacuum left in the cosmos anyway? More importantly, I can't believe that the uncertainty principle doesn't come to bear on such a perfectly fast speed of light, as I would think that there's always going to be some sort of quantum effects coming to bear on it from somewhere. It would seem more logical to me to say that our measurement of c in a vacuum is simply the speed limit for light, not the absolute speed of light in a vacuum.

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

At 8/20/2013 8:58:09 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:Sounds good to me... I mean, the speed of light can be changed so easily anyway, it's only natural to disqualify it as an absolute constant. We figured that a vacuum would present the ultimate speed of it, but is there any total vacuum left in the cosmos anyway? More importantly, I can't believe that the uncertainty principle doesn't come to bear on such a perfectly fast speed of light, as I would think that there's always going to be some sort of quantum effects coming to bear on it from somewhere. It would seem more logical to me to say that our measurement of c in a vacuum is simply the speed limit for light, not the absolute speed of light in a vacuum.

Wrong, "c" is constant ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Massless particles like photons and gravitons always travel at that speed in a vacuum, regardless of their energy or what frame of reference you measure them in. Special Relativity was formulated to explain why light is always measured to be moving at the same speed, not the other way around. The paradox arose because people assumed that space and time were fixed and absolute. By abandoning those assumptions and adopting a model in which space-time can stretch and bend, the paradox disappears.

You will notice that my cited article says that light moves slower than "c" when going through air or water. That is not the speed of the individual photons, rather we are factoring the time wasted when those photons are absorbed by electrons in the air/water and re-emitted in a new direction. The photons themselves are still moving at "c" from one electron to another, because atoms are mostly empty space and so the concept of a "vacuum" loses its meaning on the subatomic scale.

The concepts of space and time must be basic in physics.But these conceptions didn't solve until now .From the one hand, according to SRT, both space and time relative . . . .From the other hand, according to SRT, 4D spacetime is an absolute continuum.And nobody explains what negative 4D really is by ordinary logical languageand therefore . . . . . .===...

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

Quantum of light is a manifestation of the absolute spacetime continuum.Quantum of light has its own peculiar, characteristic behavior.Quantum of light is an independent particle in the absolute spacetime continuum.In different laboratory conditions physicists can observe different abilities of quantum of light.===.

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

At 8/20/2013 8:58:09 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:Sounds good to me... I mean, the speed of light can be changed so easily anyway, it's only natural to disqualify it as an absolute constant. We figured that a vacuum would present the ultimate speed of it, but is there any total vacuum left in the cosmos anyway? More importantly, I can't believe that the uncertainty principle doesn't come to bear on such a perfectly fast speed of light, as I would think that there's always going to be some sort of quantum effects coming to bear on it from somewhere. It would seem more logical to me to say that our measurement of c in a vacuum is simply the speed limit for light, not the absolute speed of light in a vacuum.

Wrong, "c" is constant ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Massless particles like photons and gravitons always travel at that speed in a vacuum, regardless of their energy or what frame of reference you measure them in. Special Relativity was formulated to explain why light is always measured to be moving at the same speed, not the other way around. The paradox arose because people assumed that space and time were fixed and absolute. By abandoning those assumptions and adopting a model in which space-time can stretch and bend, the paradox disappears.

You will notice that my cited article says that light moves slower than "c" when going through air or water. That is not the speed of the individual photons, rather we are factoring the time wasted when those photons are absorbed by electrons in the air/water and re-emitted in a new direction. The photons themselves are still moving at "c" from one electron to another, because atoms are mostly empty space and so the concept of a "vacuum" loses its meaning on the subatomic scale.

What about the uncertainty principle? Isn't there always going to be quantum fluctuations at the subatomic scale that act upon such quanta of light?

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

At 8/20/2013 8:58:09 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:Sounds good to me... I mean, the speed of light can be changed so easily anyway, it's only natural to disqualify it as an absolute constant. We figured that a vacuum would present the ultimate speed of it, but is there any total vacuum left in the cosmos anyway? More importantly, I can't believe that the uncertainty principle doesn't come to bear on such a perfectly fast speed of light, as I would think that there's always going to be some sort of quantum effects coming to bear on it from somewhere. It would seem more logical to me to say that our measurement of c in a vacuum is simply the speed limit for light, not the absolute speed of light in a vacuum.

Wrong, "c" is constant ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ). Massless particles like photons and gravitons always travel at that speed in a vacuum, regardless of their energy or what frame of reference you measure them in. Special Relativity was formulated to explain why light is always measured to be moving at the same speed, not the other way around. The paradox arose because people assumed that space and time were fixed and absolute. By abandoning those assumptions and adopting a model in which space-time can stretch and bend, the paradox disappears.

You will notice that my cited article says that light moves slower than "c" when going through air or water. That is not the speed of the individual photons, rather we are factoring the time wasted when those photons are absorbed by electrons in the air/water and re-emitted in a new direction. The photons themselves are still moving at "c" from one electron to another, because atoms are mostly empty space and so the concept of a "vacuum" loses its meaning on the subatomic scale.

What about the uncertainty principle? Isn't there always going to be quantum fluctuations at the subatomic scale that act upon such quanta of light?

I think that would be light moving through a medium, as Jack describes. So you cannot precisely measure repeater time in a particular molecule, which is not measuring c itself.

What about the uncertainty principle? Isn't there always going to be quantum fluctuations at the subatomic scale that act upon such quanta of light?

A quantum fluctuation ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) is when a virtual particle-antiparticle pair pops into existence out of nothing, in seeming violation of Conservation of Energy (it's not, it's exploiting a loophole). It doesn't mean everything will flux all the time, otherwise it would be difficult to form atoms, molecules and living organisms.

The Uncertainty Principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) prevents you from knowing both the exact position and exact momentum of a particle at the same time. We use the speed of light when calculating the momentum of a photon ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), so I doubt it will clash with the Uncertainty Principle.

My knowledge of Physics ends there, so I can't give you a more detailed answer.

On September 21, 1908 Hermann Minkowski began his talk atthe 80th Assembly of German Natural Scientists and Physicianswith the now famous introduction:" The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprungfrom the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength.They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself,are doomed to fade away into mere shadows,and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."Since then the question of the ontological status of this union of space and timehas become the subject of a continued debate..........http://www.spacetimesociety.org...==.

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

What about the uncertainty principle? Isn't there always going to be quantum fluctuations at the subatomic scale that act upon such quanta of light?

A quantum fluctuation ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) is when a virtual particle-antiparticle pair pops into existence out of nothing, in seeming violation of Conservation of Energy (it's not, it's exploiting a loophole). It doesn't mean everything will flux all the time, otherwise it would be difficult to form atoms, molecules and living organisms.

The Uncertainty Principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) prevents you from knowing both the exact position and exact momentum of a particle at the same time. We use the speed of light when calculating the momentum of a photon ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), so I doubt it will clash with the Uncertainty Principle.

My knowledge of Physics ends there, so I can't give you a more detailed answer.

My knowledge of physics is rather rudimentary as well, but I can tell you that the scope of each of those concepts goes beyond momentum and position. "Uncertainty relations" also include time and energy state. Using these four variables, the uncertainty principle can be expanded out from simply trying to look at a particle under a microscope. Whether that includes the measurement of c is beyond my technical ability to determine and I'd have to appeal to somebody who has more knowledge in that area.

Quantum fluctuations also go beyond the scope of virtual particles. Perhaps I'm getting the jargon wrong here, but there's all sorts of things like quantum tunneling (for instance) that go on at that scale... My interpretation, trying to take all of what we're talking about into account, is that there's not a whole lot (if anything) that comes with much exactitude once we get smaller than an atom! As Sum Over Histories alludes to, what we see at the macroscopic scale is just a smear of statistical results that have meaning only because of the massive uncertainty of trillions of particles all working together without anybody ever really knowing what's truly having. One of the most fundamental properties of the universe is that the basic mechanics are hidden from view. The only certainty you can get is based on uncertainty, IOWs you can only have concrete knowledge of something if and ONLY if there is so much uncertainty surrounding it that it doesn't really matter if you're right or wrong in your measurements. There have been experiments that specifically demonstrate this censorship... So when you see a black hole and wonder how inconvenient it is that we can't see inside it, or think its inconvenient that we just don't happen to be able to find the exact position and velocity of any particle, or wonder why it's so inconvenient that cooling a particle down to zero causes it to lose its identity, or how it is generally so inconvenient that anything we measure at the quantum level fluctuates chaotically.... Just realize that these aren't discrete inconveniences, they are all a result of the fact that the universe is inherently censored. I'm not sure if the speed of c is part of that (I can't see that knowing c exactly would violate the censorship at all) but I wouldn't be surprised if it is part of that framework of uncertainty that seems to surround everything.

Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.

Particles are also waves. All the weirdness of quantum physics stems from that dual view, because waves do things that particles can't (and vice-versa). There are models such as String Theory that better describe the actual behavior of matter and the fundamental forces, but they're really complicated, still hypothetical, and not practical for everyday stuff. The speed of light is a physical constant regardless of whether you're looking at that photon as a wave, particle or string, and the velocity of a photon is unrelated to its energy, so quantum weirdness won't affect it.

All the weirdness of quantum physics stems from that dual view,because waves do things that particles can't (and vice-versa).There are models such as String Theory that better describe the actual behaviorof matter and the fundamental forces, but they're really complicated,still hypothetical, and not practical for everyday stuff.The speed of light is a physical constant regardless of whetheryou're looking at that photon as a wave, particle or string,and the velocity of a photon is unrelated to its energy,so quantum weirdness won't affect it.

" . . . the velocity of a photon is unrelated to its energy . . . ."Jack212 wrote==..

Maybe the God gave a photon the first push to move.#Forces / energies make particles move.There is no free lunch for motions.Particles for its movement must pay with energy-money.Without energy your car doesn't move one inch.=.

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

Maybe the God gave a photon the first push to move.#Forces / energies make particles move.There is no free lunch for motions.Particles for its movement must pay with energy-money.Without energy your car doesn't move one inch.=.

1. God is just Santa Claus for adults, so he's not relevant to discussions about Physics.

2. Photons are primarily emitted by electrons jumping between orbitals in an atom. Electron absorbs photon, its energy increases and it jumps to a higher orbital. However, an electron wants to be in the lowest stable energy, so it emits a photon, its energy decreases, and it returns to its original state. That is what gives photons their "push".

3. Rambling about abstract philosophical interpretations of physics doesn't make you sound smart, it just makes it obvious to anybody with even a basic understanding of science that you don't know what you're talking about.

Maybe the God gave a photon the first push to move.#Forces / energies make particles move.There is no free lunch for motions.Particles for its movement must pay with energy-money.Without energy your car doesn't move one inch.=.

1. God is just Santa Claus for adults, so he's not relevant to discussions about Physics.

Maybe the God gave a photon the first push to move.#Forces / energies make particles move.There is no free lunch for motions.Particles for its movement must pay with energy-money.Without energy your car doesn't move one inch.=.

1. God is just Santa Claus for adults, so he's not relevant to discussions about Physics.

2. Photons are primarily emitted by electrons jumping between orbitals in an atom. Electron absorbs photon, its energy increases and it jumps to a higher orbital. However, an electron wants to be in the lowest stable energy, so it emits a photon, its energy decreases, and it returns to its original state. That is what gives photons their "push".

3. Rambling about abstract philosophical interpretations of physics doesn't make

you sound smart, it just makes it obvious to anybody with even a basicunderstanding of science that you don't know what you're talking about.=====

" . . . the velocity of a photon is unrelated to its energy . . . ."Jack212 wrote==.." 3. Rambling about abstract philosophical interpretations of physicsdoesn't make you sound smart, it just makes it obvious to anybodywith even a basic understanding of science that you don't knowwhat you're talking about."Jack212 wrote==..

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

2. Photons are primarily emitted by electrons jumping between orbitals in an atom.Electron absorbs photon, its energy increases and it jumps to a higher orbital.However, an electron wants to be in the lowest stable energy, so it emits a photon,its energy decreases, and it returns to its original state.That is what gives photons their "push".===============.That is what . . . . (electrons ) . . . . gives photons their "push"Jack212 wrote=======================

Do you know what there are free independent photons ?For example: Einstein's photon in SRT.

====

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

What about the uncertainty principle? Isn't there always going to be quantum fluctuations at the subatomic scale that act upon such quanta of light?

A quantum fluctuation ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) is when a virtual particle-antiparticle pair pops into existence out of nothing, in seeming violation of Conservation of Energy (it's not, it's exploiting a loophole). It doesn't mean everything will flux all the time, otherwise it would be difficult to form atoms, molecules and living organisms.

The Uncertainty Principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) prevents you from knowing both the exact position and exact momentum of a particle at the same time. We use the speed of light when calculating the momentum of a photon ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ), so I doubt it will clash with the Uncertainty Principle.

My knowledge of Physics ends there, so I can't give you a more detailed answer.

My knowledge of physics is rather rudimentary as well, but I can tell you that the scope of each of those concepts goes beyond momentum and position. "Uncertainty relations" also include time and energy state. Using these four variables, the uncertainty principle can be expanded out from simply trying to look at a particle under a microscope. Whether that includes the measurement of c is beyond my technical ability to determine and I'd have to appeal to somebody who has more knowledge in that area.

Quantum fluctuations also go beyond the scope of virtual particles. Perhaps I'm getting the jargon wrong here, but there's all sorts of things like quantum tunneling (for instance) that go on at that scale... My interpretation, trying to take all of what we're talking about into account, is that there's not a whole lot (if anything) that comes with much exactitude once we get smaller than an atom! As Sum Over Histories alludes to, what we see at the macroscopic scale is just a smear of statistical results that have meaning only because of the massive uncertainty of trillions of particles all working together without anybody ever really knowing what's truly having. One of the most fundamental properties of the universe is that the basic mechanics are hidden from view. The only certainty you can get is based on uncertainty, IOWs you can only have concrete knowledge of something if and ONLY if there is so much uncertainty surrounding it that it doesn't really matter if you're right or wrong in your measurements. There have been experiments that specifically demonstrate this censorship... So when you see a black hole and wonder how inconvenient it is that we can't see inside it, or think its inconvenient that we just don't happen to be able to find the exact position and velocity of any particle, or wonder why it's so inconvenient that cooling a particle down to zero causes it to lose its identity, or how it is generally so inconvenient that anything we measure at the quantum level fluctuates chaotically.... Just realize that these aren't discrete inconveniences, they are all a result of the fact that the universe is inherently censored. I'm not sure if the speed of c is part of that (I can't see that knowing c exactly would violate the censorship at all) but I wouldn't be surprised if it is part of that framework of uncertainty that seems to surround everything.

Unlike other physical constants, there is no uncertainty to the speed of light. This is because the length of a meter is defined with relation to the speed of light (specifically, a meter is how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, so light travels 299,792,458 meters per second). In a theoretical vacuum (without quantum fluctuations), there would be no fluctuations in the speed of light, so both the speed of light and the length of a meter are absolutely constant. The Uncertainty Principle deals with momentum (not velocity); the momentum of a photon is given by p = h/wavelength, consequently the Uncertainty Principle relates to the ability to exactly measure the wavelength/frequency of light.

Perhaps another question is whether defining the speed of light with relation to a vacuum is desirable since an actual vacuum is impossible. However, the effects of quantum fluctuations are negligible, and there isn't sufficient observational data to suggest variations in the speed of light.

Interesting. . . . . Heisenberg uncertainty principle:position x and momentum p, time t and energy E (uncertainty relation)But. . . .Unlike other physical constants, there is no uncertainty to the speed of light.This is because the length of a meter is defined with relation to the speed of light(specifically, a meter is how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds,so light travels 299,792,458 meters per second).In a theoretical vacuum (without quantum fluctuations), there would beno fluctuations in the speed of light, so both the speed of light and the lengthof a meter are absolutely constant./ Enji /(specifically, a meter is how far light travels in 1/299,792,458 seconds, / Enji / )

One meter is equal to 1/299,792,458 seconds and vice versa. /socratus/

(so both the speed of light and the length of a meter are absolutely constant. / Enji / )In SRT / Lorentz transformations this time is also a negative: x=-ct.

Over the past one hundred years measurements of the speed of light became very accurate and consistently gave a value of 299,792,458 m/s from about 1970 onwards.

Non-scientists usually do not appreciate the significance of this value being written down as a nine digit number. The nine digits represent the accuracy of the value.

It means the value has been measured to an accuracy of 1 part in a billion.

This is comparable to measuring your height to the nearest molecule. If that fact does not inspire you need help.

If the speed of light changed by as little as 1m/s it would be noticed. That's a change of just 0.0000003%.

Remember that these measurements are made on a planet that orbits the sun at speed of about 30,000 m/s. So the change in the earth's velocity in one year is at least 60,000 m/s yet the speed of light relative to an earth based observer does not change by as much as 1 m/s.

This is fairly strong evidence that the speed of light is a constant to all observers. But that's not the only evidence. There have been over hundred separate experiments carried out testing different consequences of SRT. All of them agree with SRT.

However scientists do not assume that SRT is a perfect theory and more experiments are being devised to test it. There is a growing feeling among mainstream science that the big brother of SRT, which is GRT, is fundamentally flawed. But as yet no experiment has shown any such fault. But dark matter and dark energy could be removed if GRT was slightly modified. This point is important because it shows that science is open minded. It is not a private club or a government conspiracy or what ever other crack pot allegation you prefer.

Quantum uncertainty would only cause a variation of about 0.0000000000000001 m/s. (I used the square root of Planck's constant as a crude estimate) Its a quantum effect! Its very small!

I realise that most of what I have said here will be completely incoherent to people who spend most of there time 'off planet'. I just find it offensive when I encounter total garbage being spouted and feel the need to put in some genuine facts.

1. - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.2. - The speed of light c is the same in all inertial frames of reference.Postulates of special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia===..My opinion.1. -It is correct that:The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.2. -It is correct that:The speed of light c is the same in all inertial frames of reference.3.It is also correct that such formulation have nothing to do with the essence of SRT.Why?All inertial frames of reference ( Earth and another planets of solar system and galaxies )have gravity-mass. And SRT is theory without gravity-mass.( About gravity Einstein wrote GRT in 1915)All inertial frames of reference ( Earth and another planets of solar system and galaxies )have very low speed and therefore enough to use only Galileo transformationto explain that the laws of physics are the same in all inertialframes of reference. But the basis of SRT are Lorentz transformations.

The name of SRT was : " On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies."Not about Earth and another planets of solar system and galaxies the theorywas talking, but about micro particles like light quanta.The essence of SRT is explanation the behaviour of light quanta.==================...socratus

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

At 8/30/2013 1:21:45 AM, socratus wrote:All inertial frames of reference ( Earth and another planets of solar system and galaxies ) have very low speed

A frame of reference cannot have a speed. The speed of an object is measured relative to a frame. There are no absolute speeds. To put this more simply, the question "What is the speed of the Earth?" cannot be answered unless it is specified what to measure it against.

and therefore enough to use only Galileo transformationto explain that the laws of physics are the same in all inertialframes of reference. But the basis of SRT are Lorentz transformations.

For fast moving objects relative to the earth it is necessary to use the Lorentz transformations. eg for muons created in the upper atmosphere. The basis of SRT is the postulates, the Lorentz transforms can be derived from them. The Galilean transformations are an approximation, they are not accurate.

The name of SRT was : " On the Electrodynamics of moving Bodies."

That is the name Einstein gave to one of his 1905 papers. It was concerned with problems to do with electromagnetism, in particular that Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism where not velocity independent whereas electromagnetic phenomena investigated in experiments where always velocity independent. Lorentz came up with a fix, his Lorentz transformations, which was part of the reason for his Nobel prize. Einstein showed that by adopting his two postulates the LTs could be derived from first principles. His derivation of the LTs also showed that there were very significant implications for our understanding of space and time.

Not about Earth and another planets of solar system and galaxies the theorywas talking, but about micro particles like light quanta.

Einstein made no reference to light quanta in OEMB, he was considering the classical picture of light as a wave as described by Maxwell's laws. Read section 6 of OEMB. He did derive the Lorentz transformations and showed that they tell a fundamental truth about space and time, although Minkowski was the first to fully explore the implications of them.

Science is interconnected. Just because a paper is called 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' does not mean it cannot have a relevance to our understanding of space and time. OEMB has, over time, been shown to be one of the most influential papers ever written with wide ranging significance in many areas of science.

The essence of SRT is explanation the behaviour of light quanta.

SRT and quantum behaviour was first unified by Paul Dirac in 1934, nearly 30 years later. Light quanta are referred to as photons usually.

Maxwell needed a mechanical model to understand interaction betweenelectro and magnetic fields. Later this mechanical model was thrown out.Einstein needed different inertial reference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . etcto understand the relations between space and time. All these different inertialreference frames, clocks, observers, trains, .. . are secondary factors.They are " garbage for building blocks 'If we throw them out, then we have Lee Smolin's trouble:" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancyand universality of the speed of light.Could the first postulate be true and the other false?If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make twopostulates. But I don't think many people realized until recentlythat you could have a consistent theory in which you changed onlythe second postulate."/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /===.

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .

How do you suggest an understanding of space and time is achieved without thinking about things that move and things that measure movement and what do we mean when we say something is moving? If you reject the idea of a frame of reference then how can you distinguish between moving and not moving?

If we throw them out, then we have Lee Smolin's trouble:" Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancyand universality of the speed of light.Could the first postulate be true and the other false?If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make twopostulates. But I don't think many people realized until recentlythat you could have a consistent theory in which you changed onlythe second postulate."/ Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics, p. 226. /===.

Where does Lee Smolin say we need to throw out ideas of frames of reference, clocks, trains etc. He does not say this. Your quotation does not back up your proposition. Its a non-sequitur.If anything the quote from Smolin backs up the idea that Einstein was brilliant. Einstein knew he had to make two postulates back in 1905 and only recently have the rest of us caught up with him.Does Lee Smolin actually say that the second postulate is false or is he just saying that it could be false while the first is still true?

How do you suggest an understanding of space and time is achieved withoutthinking about things that move and things that measure movement andwhat do we mean when we say something is moving?If you reject the idea of a frame of reference then how can you distinguishbetween moving and not moving?/ chui /==.

Newton wrote that space and time didn't depend on the matter and things.Eienstein wrote that space and time were depended on the matter and things.=

Where does Lee Smolin say we need to throw out ideas of frames of reference, clocks, trains etc.He does not say this. Your quotation does not back up your proposition. Its a non-sequitur.If anything the quote from Smolin backs up the idea that Einstein was brilliant.Einstein knew he had to make two postulates back in 1905 and only recentlyhave the rest of us caught up with him.Does Lee Smolin actually say that the second postulate is false oris he just saying that it could be false while the first is still true?/ chui /

Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates:One is the constancy and universality - minimal of the speed of light.The second is the relativity of every motion, even including" the constancy and minimal speed of quantum of light "==============================.

The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .